Evidence submitted by the Brethren Christian
Fellowship (The Brethren)
1. WHO ARE
THE BRETHREN?
For the purpose of this submission, we will
not go into detail about the history of the Brethren (sometimes
referred to as the Plymouth Brethren but are now more commonly
referred to as the Exclusive Brethren). It is perhaps sufficient
to say that the movement commenced in Dublin in about 1828 and
now comprises around 45,000 worldwide who are found in 19 countries
including 9 Member States of the European Union. Further information
can be found at the only website endorsed by the Brethren: www.theexclusive
brethren.com.
2. BRETHREN'S
INTEREST IN
GOVERNMENT
It is true to say that widespread interest among
the Brethren in government and international affairs has intensified
in recent years. Nevertheless, over the last four decades in particular,
many Brethren members have become known personally to MPs, Government
Ministers, Peers etc. The Brethren are not an extreme fundamentalist
minority group as might be suggested by some. They are a group
of sincere Christians who pray for and support what is right in
Government according to Holy Scripture. Government is ordained
of God, as set out in the following quotations from the Bible:
"For there is no authority except from God;
and those that exist are set up by God,"—see Romans
chapter 13 v 1
"that supplications, prayers, intercessions,
thanksgivings be made for all men; for kings and all that are
in dignity"—see 1 Timothy chapter 2 v 1
The Brethren believe there is abundant testimony
both from the Bible and history itself that the Western World,
namely Europe and its outgoings (essentially the Americas and
Australasia) has prospered as a direct result of embracing Christianity.
This came to pass through entry into Europe by the Apostle Paul,
his port of entry being Philippi where amongst other things he
gave the exhortation to "Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou
shalt be saved, thou and thy house"—see Acts chapter
16 v 31.
3. PURPOSE OF
SUBMISSION
The principle that is controlling our request
for the Government to take action is that, as believers on our
Lord Jesus Christ, our bodies are not our own but belong to Him—"and
ye are not your own for ye have been bought with a price",—1
Corinthians 6 v 19 & 20. We are seeking a way in which the
lawful requirements can be met—that is, a natural, terminal
cause of death is found, acceptable to the Coroner; at the same
time, the least possible interference is made to the body, especially
that no organs are retained without permission when the death
is natural, so that the body is held respectfully and complete
for burial. The need is for the Human Race—every man, woman
and child — to be protected. God's rights as Creator and
Christ's rights as Redeemer must be recognised.
4. EXPERIENCE
AND THE
CURRENT SITUATION
We are making this submission as having had
experience in the past of the failure of the current situation
prevailing in the Coroners system. In the case of Mr and Mrs Taylor
the Coroner was not prepared to instruct the pathologist. Since
this time, in circumstances requiring a Coroners post mortem,
it has meant a personal approach to each Coroner, which has usually
been met with sympathy resulting in a control. In the case of
Mr and Mrs Thewlis, slipshod practice by the Coroner including
the acceptance without question of an incomplete post mortem report
resulted in a child's heart being retained for research purposes.
At present: when a sudden and unexplained death
occurs, the Coroner automatically orders a post mortem. No parental
or next of kin consent is required. The legal term is that "The
body belongs to the Crown".
At present: when a post mortem has to take place,
we cannot deny the right of the Crown to possession of the body
to establish the cause of death. We do deny the right of anyone
for extending the examination and retaining parts beyond this
point without permission.
5. ACTION POINTS
Coroners need:
— a framework, someone that they are
answerable to—at present it is a "post-code lottery"
varying from area to area.
— power to exercise discretion, waive
a post mortem under prescribed criteria.
— power to authorize a limited post
mortem.
Question 1: Could there be a provision for
exemption from a post mortem when circumstances allow?
We ask that in instances where:
(a) A sincere conscientious objection to
a post mortem is voiced.
(b) No suspicious circumstances are present.
(c) There is no a mark or blemish on the
body.
(d) There is a full acquaintance of the family
doctor with the home background and the patient's terminal illness.
THE CORONER
SHOULD HAVE
THE ABILITY
TO WAIVE
THE POST
MORTEM IF
SO REQUESTED.
Question 2: Could there be a provision for
a limited post mortem where the above is not possible?
We ask that: when a conscientious objection
and a request for the body to be complete for burial is voiced
by the parents or next of kin, the Coroner may see fit to instruct
that he does not want the post mortem to extend beyond what is
necessary to establish the immediate cause of death. The enclosed
letter from Prof. James Underwood of the Royal College of Pathologists
would indicate their support for this proposal.
In view of the body being interfered with as
little as possible could consideration be given to the use of
MRI scanning equipment to ascertain the cause of death? We have
first hand knowledge of this method being used in a very recent
case in Australia. We are also aware of a trial of this procedure
by the Jewish community in Manchester. We realise this equipment
is expensive and existing facilities are over-subscribed but would
submit that this could be organised on a regional basis as we
envisage that only a relatively small number of post mortems would
require the use of this equipment.
6. CONCLUSION
We had a personal interview with Mr Tom Luce
and Mr Michael Galagher at the beginning of the Review, which
was followed up with a detailed Submission and a response to the
Consultation Document, both of which are indexed under Christian
Conscience in the Report of the Fundamental Review 2003 CM5831.
We have had a meeting in Whitehall with Rosie Winterton, the Minister
responsible for the Human Tissue Bill. We attended virtually all
the Retained Organs Commission meetings. We followed the passage
of the Human Tissue Bill through Parliament at every stage; we
are thankful for the provision enshrined in the Act, based on
the principle of Consent. We are also well acquainted with Hugh
Whittal, civil servant at the Dept. of Health.
— The Recommendations for Coroners
included in the Royal Liverpool Childrens Enquiry by Redfern at
Section 56 pages 354 and 355 are valuable and we feel they should
be adopted.
— We wish to be constructively supporting
the government in this Review in order to offer protection to
all mankind.
Stuart Taylor and David J Thewlis
The Brethren Christian Fellowship (The Brethren)
March 2006
| 
